Appeal 6001138

The appeal is dismissed, and planning permission is refused.

A Unilateral Undertaking (UU) was submitted with the appeal which stipulates that if the business to which the dwelling would be tied ceases to trade from the site for a period in excess of 12 months, the residential occupation of the land will cease, the building demolished and the land retuned to its former state prior to construction within 18 months. I shall return to this matter later in this decision.

As indicated in the banner heading above, a decision was not issued within the prescribed period. The South Downs National Park Authority (NPA) has indicated that it would have refused planning permission had a decision been issued and has provided reasons with its appeal questionnaire.

Based on the above, the main issues are as follows: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. • The size of the proposed dwelling and potential impacts upon the continued financial viability of the rural enterprise.

The appeal site is formed of a paddock located to the northeast of the main stable and yard area of [site address] , which is an equine business operated by the appellants. The proposal seeks to construct a single storey dwelling which would be partly subterranean, built into the landform of the paddock. Above ground level, the proposal would include large areas of glazing to the east and west elevations, while there would also be a new access track, courtyard garden and a terrace.

I have had due regard to the appellant’s Landscape and [name] Assessment1 (LVIA) and landscape rebuttal2 submitted with the appeal, as well as my own observations on my site visit following the hearing. The appeal site is located within the South Downs National Park (NP) to which Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) requires that relevant authorities, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in any National Park in England, must seek to further the purposes specified in section 5(1) and if it appears that there is a conflict between those purposes, must attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park.

The appeal site is evidently in the ‘[name] character area which is located within the ‘[name] as per the South Downs National Park Landscape Character Assessment (2020). This is described as a lowland vale enclosed by steep slopes, including the [name] to the south and the rising topography to the north towards Fernhurst. The key characteristics of the [name] area include pasture fields interspersed with woodland, much of which is ancient and of ecological importance with small to medium sized irregular fields defined by intact dense hedgerows and sinuous woodland edges. Generally speaking, the area is described as a deeply rural, tranquil landscape.

Built form in the area is largely dispersed and formed of isolated farmsteads and other rural enterprises. The main two settlements are Fernhurst and Milland which are generally comprised of dispersed modern development around older cores. Buildings in the area are largely comprised of traditional materials such as timber, red brick, sandstone and clay tiles, albeit with some inevitable deviations from this palette.

The access track taken from the A286 road descends into the yard area which lies below higher paddocks to the east and north. The paddock within which the proposed dwelling would be located appears to be the highest point of the wider site and typifies many of the local positive characteristics of the area, including irregular field patterns lined with hedgerows and bound by the ancient semi-natural woodland belt to the west. The site undulates in form with the wider local landscape but is largely enclosed by its topography and woodland, albeit open views are possible to the southwest.

Although the intention to make the dwelling largely sub-terranean is understood, this would require substantial engineering works to facilitate its construction. This would include significant excavations, stone filled gabions for retaining walls and overhanging roofs to reduce light spill and accommodate a green roof. This would appear highly manipulated and overtly engineered so as to fundamentally alter the character of the landscape and I cannot agree that the works are minor despite the presence of other man-made features on the site.

Furthermore, the engineering and modern character of the proposed dwelling would be at odds with prevailing character of the area. The sectional drawings show the dwelling would be built into the slope of the site which rises towards the 1 Harper Landscape Architecture LLP – December 2024 2 Harper Landscape Architecture LLP – 10 December 2025 host paddock, with the courtyard garden to be at a similar lower ground floor level. However, the proposed east and west elevations drawing shows the existing ground level, with the dwelling rising to a significant level above this. Although hedges would be planted to the south to screen the dwelling, and the property would be largely buried by backfilling the excavation, the engineering required would likely still be evident.

[name] understand the design approach included measures such as the above to attempt to reduce its visual impacts, in doing so this has necessitated substantial engineering works in a naturally undulating, rural and tranquil area. Moreover, the use of significant engineering measures which would remain evident above ground, such as the gabion retaining walls, large expanses of glass and large roof soffits would appear incongruous set against the more traditional building materials prevalent in the area, further adding to the dwelling’s incongruity. The need for gabions in particular is telling of the works required to facilitate such a development. As such, I cannot agree that the proposal with its engineering works would not be dominant or urbanising. To the contrary, they serve to show the limitations of the appeal site to accommodate the proposal.

I was informed by both main parties of the development of the former ‘Syngenta’ site, which is located on the opposite side of [site address] . I understand that this has been historically used for a variety of purposes, including industrial and military uses. Evidently, the site has been granted planning permission for redevelopment into housing and some small commercial development which has commenced development to a small degree but is largely not yet built out. This is clearly a large scale site which is somewhat unusual for a rural area and one which would largely work against the inherent aims of a National Park as a protected landscape of the highest order. However, this has been present far in advance of the advent of the National Park and its circumstances are somewhat different to the appeal proposal.

I am also directed to what the appellant deems as detracting uses in the area, such as [site address] . However, a single carriageway road would not be unusual in a rural area and to my mind a design led approach should aspire to further the positive features of the site and wider area rather than use perceived negative detractors, such as the Syngenta site or the road, to justify harm.

While there was much discussion of the merits of a more traditional house in a different part of the wider site, those were not the proposals before me, and I have assessed the proposal as it was presented to me. The feasibility of other parts of the site are noted in the appellant’s submissions, but the limitations of the site in terms of its potential capacity to host a relatively large dwelling does not justify the harm I have identified.

There was further discussion at the hearing regarding the concerns of the NPA with regards to light spill in a designated dark skies protection area. Although this was not given in its reasons it would have used in the event that the application was determined, there are no ‘reasons for refusal’ as such given the non-determination outcome. I also have not been furnished with a copy of policy SD8 of the South Downs Local Plan 2014 – 2033 (adopted July 2019) (LP).

However, I have very little information on this matter before me from either party. Given the design of the proposal with large expanses of glazing facing the woodland, and the appeal site’s location within a designated dark skies area, the impacts of light spill are of significant concern given dark skies are an important contributor to the key characteristics of the NP. Without a suitable lighting assessment, I share the concerns of the NPA on this matter. [name] acknowledge that the appellant would be agreeable to a condition to control this, I am not provided with detail of how a condition requiring these measures would be reasonable or enforceable, particularly with regards to the use of blinds. I understand that comments from the NPA’s ecological and landscape officers may not have been available through the application process. This is unfortunate, but it does not negate the concerns I have regarding harmful impacts from excessive artificial light.

Turning to visual impacts of the proposal, I note there was general agreement between the parties that these would be limited from most vantage points, particularly those given in the submitted photomontages included in the LVIA. On the recommendation of the [name] visited viewpoints 4, 5 and 6 as given in the LVIA where the site would be partially visible. From these viewpoints it was clear that the proposal would be glimpsed through vegetation but largely obscured by landform of the site and area. Given the landscaping measures proposed this would lessen over time and as such I agree that the magnitude of impact would be negligible or slight upon completion of the works but lessen following maturation of screening and vegetation proposed. As such, the visual impacts would be minimal and considered acceptable.

Taken together, the proposal would harm the local landscape character of this part of the NP due to the substantial engineering works which would harmfully alter the natural landform and rural tranquillity of the area. This would be contrary to policies SD4, SD5, SD7 and SD8 of the LP which seek, among other things, to ensure that the design, layout and scale of proposals conserve and enhance existing landscape character features which contribute to the distinctive character, pattern and evolution of the landscape. The proposal would also be contrary to section 245 of the LURA insofar as it would harm and not to contribute to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty, special qualities and key characteristics of a [name]. The scheme would also be contrary to section 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), in particular paragraph 189 which gives great weight to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks.

The key policy in this matter is SD32 of the LP, which allows for the development proposals for agricultural and forestry workers dwellings where it has been demonstrated that the nature and demand of the work concerned make it essential for one or more people engaged in agricultural and forestry enterprises to live at, or very close to, the site of their work.

I understand that the LP is currently under review and that changes to the wording of policy SD32 are proposed. Fundamentally, this would change ‘agricultural and forestry workers’ to ‘rural workers’. There was some disagreement at the hearing regarding the degree of consistency between SD32 and the Framework. However, it is agreed between the parties that this element of the proposal is acceptable given the direction of travel of policy SD32 and the changes which would align it with paragraph 84 of the Framework. Based on all that I have seen and read, I see no reason to disagree.

The crux of the disagreement on this matter is the size of the dwelling and engineering works required to facilitate it which the NPA advises could harm the long term financial viability of the enterprise to which the dwelling would be intrinsically tied. I have been presented with estimated costs to construct the proposed dwelling, which is given as approximately £769,000. In comparison a more traditional option, which I understand is based on the same internal floor space would be around £704,000. Both options indicate a higher than average build cost would be incurred due to the site characteristics and engineering required.

It was explained that the appellants would fund the dwelling privately from savings and a mortgage would not be required. [name] agree that both figures seem high, particularly on a per square metre basis, there is no requirement to justify the costs within policy SD32. Based on all that I have heard and read, there is little substantive evidence to support the concern that the proposed build costs would harmfully impact upon the viability of the enterprise moving forward. The appellants have already invested a substantial figure into developing the operation, they are clearly seeking to expand and make successful an enterprise that they are passionate about. The business has evidently turned profit exponentially in the latest available financial returns and there is little to suggest that this would change, particularly if the build was financed by savings rather than a mortgage.

Moreover, the presence of the appellant and their family on site would reduce some other overheads such as wages for overnight specialist staff while also being able to attract more clients with added security and prestige. Taken together, I do not consider it has been demonstrated that the scheme would cause the business to which it is tied to become unviable in the future.

Even in a worst case scenario type occurrence, the UU submitted with the appeal would secure the legally enforceable removal of the dwelling in the instance that the business no longer operating after 12 months. I agree it would be somewhat impractical to remove a subterranean structure from the site, and its projected build costs would not make this option particularly inviting for the appellants. However, they would be legally bound to do so and any costs of doing this would have to be covered on their side. A future application to remove the rural worker tie of the house to the business may be forthcoming in that scenario, although much of this discussion is hypothetical at this stage. It is well within the NPA’s scope to refuse any such application if they see fit, albeit there is nothing substantive before me at this time to indicate that this would be forthcoming.

The change of use of the land to the equestrian business was approved3 by the NPA as was the caravan4. In doing so, and as confirmed in both the signed Statement of [name] (SoCG) and orally at the hearing, the NPA accepts that the enterprise is being operated on a sound financial footing which now justifies a permanent residential building on the site. Based on all that I have seen, read and heard, I have no reason to disagree. 3 SDNP/13/02762/FUL 4 SDNP/23/04023/FUL

As such, I am taken to part 2 of policy SD32 which gives several criteria that must be met. The only matter in dispute is part (e), which states that the dwelling should be well-related in terms of siting to existing buildings or dwellings within the enterprise, result in and remain as a total habitable floor space not exceeding 120m2 (gross internal area) and be sensitively designed. I have already concluded that the proposal would not be sensitively designed in the foregoing section of this

Following discussions at the hearing, there does not seem to be any explanation or justification for the size limit prescribed in policy SD32 within the LP. I understand this may be a remnant of former policies of Chichester District Council relating to control of this matter from before the designation of the National Park. Regardless, it is part of the development plan as a requirement of policy SD32, and I see no reason not to consider this in the context of the appeal site.

There is no dispute that the proposal would exceed [address] metres (m2) gross internal area. Although the NPA generally excludes office and welfare spaces from the calculation, even with these reductions the floor space would be 137.5m2. The proposal would therefore be contrary to this part of the policy.

I am provided with a list of other applications for rural workers dwellings which were approved by the NPA and other local authorities prior to the creation of the NP. The list includes 5 that were granted planning permission despite exceeding the 120m2 limit of policy SD32, and larger than the proposal before me. I have been provided with plans and some other details for these.

Downs Farm5 appears to be substantially larger than the 120m2 limit at 453m2 including office space. However, this was recommended for refusal by planning officers and approved by the planning committee given the site specific circumstances. [address] was slightly larger than the proposal before me excluding the office space, although it is smaller when this is included overall. However, this was evidently approved in 2002, sometime before the advent of the Framework and the National Park’s designation. The other 3 dwellings approved evidently did not have officer reports available and as such their circumstances are not clear. I am therefore not able to ascertain whether they would provide justification in this proposal to exceed the size prescribed for rural workers dwellings give in policy SD32.

To conclude on this main issue, while the principle of erecting a permanent dwelling on the site has been agreed in accordance with part 1 of policy SD32, the proposal would be contrary to the second part of that policy as it would exceed the allowable size. This would conflict with the development plan and with no material considerations before me, I see no reason to conclude otherwise.

I must give substantial weight to the harm I have found with regards to landscape character, particularly given the appeal site’s location within a National Park which is the nation’s highest landscape designation. This would be contrary to the development plan, Framework, and the duty placed on the relevant authority, in this case me as the decision maker, to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park. 5 FU/11/04461/[name] would be further harm to the conflict with the development plan with regards to the size of the dwelling exceeding the allowable limits of policy SD32 for a rural worker’s dwelling. This is attributed further substantial weight.

However, I do recognise the benefits of the proposal to the rural enterprise. I acknowledge that the business could remain viable in spite of the high cost of construction of the proposal, while the NPA had already accepted the principle of a dwelling in this location due to the viability of the business up to that point in time. Having the dwelling on site would provide a suitable place to allow the appellant and their family to spend more time at the site, further the business by meeting clients, ensure welfare of horses and reduce existing operating costs. I attach significant weigh to these matters. However, to my mind these would not outweigh the harm.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole as well as the need to conserve and enhance the National Park laid down in the LURA. It would also conflict with the advice in the Framework. I have considered the evidence presented to me both in written submissions and orally at the hearing, as well as my observations on the site visit. However, these do not convince me that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.